43 The defi nite determiner in Early Middle English: What happened with þe? Cynthia L. Allen Australian National University Abstract This paper offers new data bearing on the question of when English developed a defi nite article, distinct from the distal demonstrative. It focuses primarily on one criterion that has been used in dating this development, namely the inability of þe (Modern English the, the refl ex of the demonstrative se) to be used as a pronoun. I argue that this criterion is not a satisfactory one and propose a treatment of þe as a form which could occupy either the head D of DP or the specifi er of DP. This is an approach consistent with Crisma’s (2011) position that a defi nite article emerged within the Old English (OE) period. I offer a new piece of evidence supporting Crisma’s demonstration of a difference between OE poetry and the prose of the ninth century and later. 1. Introduction: dating the defi nite article A long-standing problem in historical English syntax is dating the emergence of the defi nite article. A major diffi culty here, noted by Johanna Wood (2003) and others, is defi ning exactly what we mean by an ‘article.’ Millar (2000:304, note 11) comments that we might say that Modern English does not have a ‘true’ article, but only a ‘weakly demonstrative defi nite determiner’ on Himmelmann’s (1997) proposed path of development for defi nite articles. However, no one can doubt that English has moved along this path from a demonstrative determiner to something that has become more purely grammatical, with loss of deictic properties. For generative diachronic syntacticians, following Giusti (1997), the relevant syntactic change is commonly taken to be a shift of what we can call the ‘proto- Sten Vikner, Henrik Jørgensen & Elly van Gelderen (eds.): Let us have articles betwixt us – Papers in Historical and Comparative Linguistics in Honour of Johanna L. Wood. Dept. of English, School of Communication & Culture, Aarhus University, pp. 43-82, © The author(s), 2016. 44 Cynthia L. Allen article’ from being the specifi er of DP (a demonstrative) to being the D head (an article). This is the general approach argued for by Wood (2003) and the one I will adopt here, without addressing more theory-dependent details of analysis. Among those who assume this general sort of development, there are different views on when the shift from specifi er to head took place. Philippi’s (1997) placement of this development in the Late Middle English period is generally rejected by later researchers, who assume that it happened sometime in the Early Middle English (EME) period. The accounts that have been offered are vague on the exact date, and not without reason, given the paucity of English writings in the late eleventh and the twelfth centuries. There can be no doubt that substantial changes took place within the determiner system in EME. Besides the near-total loss of infl ection of the demonstratives, we have the ‘paradigm split’ investigated in Millar (2000). This was the split of what was a single paradigm into a new distal demonstrative that, developed from the neuter singular nominative and accusative form þæt in Old English (OE), versus the defi nite article the, originating in the masculine nominative singular form se. It is reasonable to try to tie these changes together in some way. In this paper, I will add new data bearing on the question of when English can be assumed to have a determiner as the D head and discuss some implications of these facts. The evidence supports the position that before þe became a ‘dedicated’ article (i.e. only an article), there was a long period when the same forms could be used either as articles, occupying the D head, or as demonstratives, in the specifi er position. In section 2, I briefl y sketch some well-known facts about the differences in the determiner system between OE and later English. Section 3 is the main part of the paper, in which I will take a closer look at a diagnostic that has been proposed for dating the emergence of the defi nite article. This proposed diagnostic turns out to be problematic, and in section 4 I add some results of my research into determiners with externally possessed body parts to the evidence provided by Crisma (2011) that the article had already emerged in the late OE period. Section 5 summarizes the main conclusions and points to some future avenues of research. 2. The Determiner in Old English To avoid making a judgement on the correct analysis when no specifi c analysis is being discussed, I will use the term ‘determiner’ as a cover term for articles and demonstratives. I will also sometimes use the term ‘article- The defi nite determiner in Early ME 45 like’ for forms which are followed by a noun rather than used pronominally and which do not have clear deictic force. The two most important non-syntactic changes that affected the determiner SE1 can be outlined briefl y. This determiner covered a functional range from a clearly deictic and distal meaning to being essentially indistinguishable from a mere marker of defi niteness. The masculine and feminine singular nominative forms, se and seo, respectively, differed from all other members of the paradigm in beginning with s- rather than þ-. They succumbed to paradigmatic pressure by becoming þe and þeo respectively.2 After a period of variation, the refl ex of the masculine nominative singular form eventually replaced all the other forms and thus became indeclinable. The other major change is the shedding of the non-deictic attributes of the neuter singular nominative and accusative form þæt, Modern English that. This form was already unlike the other forms early in OE in that it was used in some functions in which it did not refer to a neuter noun, e.g. þæt wæs god cyning ‘that was a good king’ at Beowulf line 11. I agree with Millar’s (2000:320) conclusion that the initial impetus that led to the ‘fi ssure’ of this paradigm was not the developments that led to the, but instead those developments which fostered the emergence of THAT as a purely deictic element with its own new plural infl ection those. I will not discuss this development further. Instead, I will focus on the relationship between the syncretism of forms and the loss of infl ectional categories of the old determiner and the uses of its refl exes in EME. Of particular importance to the discussion is the fact that se and the other members of the paradigm could be used without a following noun, that is, pronominally, in positions where we would use the personal pronouns he, she, or they in Modern English. Some examples of this use in EME will be given in the next section. Wood (2003:67) pointed out that when the determiner became unavailable to be used pronominally, it was no longer a demonstrative, but an article. However, pronominal use only shows that a given form is not an article in a particular instance; it does not tell us whether this form is an article in other uses. Watanabe (2009:367) adopts 1 I use small capitals for a lexeme when it might cause confusion to use a particular infl ect- ed form such as se, which might be interpreted as referring specifi cally to the masculine singular nominative form rather than including feminine þa, etc. 2 In my own text, I will use þ without distinguishing the spellings <þ> and <ð>, which represented the same interdental fricative. However, I will preserve the spellings in all examples presented. The difference in spelling is very important in such matters as iden- tifying scribal hands, etc. but it is not relevant to the matter in hand. 46 Cynthia L. Allen the loss of the pronominal use of the determiner as the best diagnostic for determining when the defi nite article developed, although he does not put a time on the loss of pronominal functions. Since this putative diagnostic is one which has been advocated recently, it is important to establish how well it works. There are problems with this proposed diagnostic even before we look at the question of whether þe ever was used as a pronoun. Crisma (2011:176) notes that if we treat a form as a defi nite article only if it is not used in any demonstrative functions or as a pronoun, that is, only when it is a ‘dedicated’ article, we would have to exclude German from the languages that have an article. I have argued in Allen (2006, 2007b) that se and other forms of this determiner could be either the specifi er of DP or the D head in OE, which is consistent with Crisma’s fi ndings discussed in section 4. Wood (2007a, b) also suggests that in some circumstances the distal demonstrative already occupied the D head in OE. I will assume that when this element is in the D head, it can be called an article. The preceding discussion indicates why the loss of the ability to serve as a pronoun cannot be a diagnostic for determining when the article came into existence (as opposed to a diagnostic for when se or its refl ex þe ceased to be a demonstrative). However, information about the behavior of þe and its variation with other forms in EME is certainly important to our understanding of the development of the determiner system. In the following section, I will present some fresh information bearing on the question of how þe replaced the infl ected forms of the determiner.